Class 29. Social Media and Social Trust
Technologically, we are in a social no-man's land that combines the worst aspect of all of the innovations that have come before social media.
If you are just joining The Freedom Academy, welcome! As a reminder, this post is a standalone “lesson” and you do not need to be caught up to follow along! I’ll reference any previous posts that offer relevant background, and you can always visit the syllabus and catch up at your own leisure. All class posts have an audio recording if you prefer to multitask while listening to me lecture!
“Technology is not good or bad; nor is it neutral.”
It’s Spring Break in real life, but class is back in session at The Freedom Academy! I’ve been working on this lesson for a bit, since to me, it really bridges the two big ideas that we have discussed in the course so far: The first is disinformation, particularly in the form of Russian active measures which seek to divide Americans and pit them against each other (a topic we explored through Modules I and II of the course). The second is why social trust is so important for a healthy democracy (a topic we discussed in the last two lessons).
What’s the connective tissue between these two themes? I’ll give you one guess! (Hint: it rhymes with “schmocial schmedia.”)
Before we go further, a quick recap to get us back up to speed: In Class 26 we discussed the concept of social trust, and why it is an essential ingredient for a healthy democracy. High levels of social trust — the value of our networks and the relationships we have with each other — correlate with high levels of civic engagement, as well as other-regarding civic virtue. In short, social trust generates a feeling of “we’re all in this together,” which can help us unify around shared values and interests, even across social cleavages. Not surprisingly, tyrants and dictators (and would-be dictators) don’t love social trust and do their best to erode and destroy it. (We have seen this occurring in real time with Putin’s arrest of mourners who attended the funeral of Alexei Navalny.)
In Class 27 we discussed two basic types of social capital: Bridging and bonding. Bridging social capital is the trust generated from people who are different than us —this type of social capital exposes us to new ideas, fosters innovation, and makes us feel connected to society as a whole. Bonding social capital is the trust generated by our connections to people like ourselves — these are closed, tightly-knit networks that offer us a sense of support and safety. Both are important in their own ways, but democratic health is more dependent on bridging social capital than bonding social capital. In fact, too much of the latter can result in tribalism, distrust, and exclusionary policies.
Finally, both of these lessons (depressingly) ended by observing that social trust — at least the “bridging” kind that we need to keep democracy afloat — has declined precipitously since, oh, the 1960s.
The question is, why?
The Usual Suspects
Like my last couple of lessons on social trust, the first part of this one will draw heavily from Robert Putnam’s Bowling Alone. That’s because Putnam’s analysis of the decline of civic engagement in America focuses in large part on isolating the causes of this shift over time, and the resulting fragmentation of our trust in each other. Putnam goes through a number of potential reasons that people slowly stopped participating in civic organizations, religious institutions, even their local bowling league. Was it the surge of women entering the labor market in the 1970s? Increased work hours over the decades that took up more free time? Urban sprawl? Like a murder mystery, Putnam goes through all of the potential suspects and finally alights on two main ones. (Spoiler alert, in case you want to read the book and find out for yourself: I’m going to talk about both of them so stop reading now.)
The first variable Putnam is able to isolate that is linked to a decline in civic engagement is what he calls “generational shift.” Beginning with the “long civic generation” of people born prior to World War II, and up to Gen X, Putnam observes that with each successive wave, the next generation had become more apathetic and less involved in civic affairs. However, before blaming Gen X for where we are today (we get blamed for everything, we don’t care), there is another, more important factor that has led to where we are today.
The Boob Tube
Outside of generational shift, Putnam homes in on one clear culprit that has impacted civic engagement and social trust. Are you ready? Here you go:
Considered in combination with a score of other factors that predict social participation (including education, generation, gender, region, size of hometown, work obligations, marriage, children, income, financial worries, religiosity, race, geographic mobility, commuting time, homeownership, and more), dependence on television for entertainment is not merely a significant predictor of civic engagement. It is the single most consistent predictor I have discovered. (emphasis mine)
Specifically, Putnam notes that watching TV was inversely related to the following activities:
volunteering
staying in touch with friends and relatives
attending club meetings
going to church
being civil to strangers
So the adults were right all along — television was destroying us! But read the above carefully: Putnam says that it wasn’t just television, but being dependent on television for entertainment that is directly related to a decline in civic engagement. By contrast, people who relied on TV primarily for information — like the news — were not less likely to do all of these things.
The relationship between a dependency on TV for entertainment and lower civic engagement makes sense. For one thing, it takes up leisure time — time that you might otherwise be using to go out and do stuff. Second, it’s by nature a self-contained, isolating activity; you don’t really need anyone with you to veg out in front of the television, and it typically keeps you anchored to your living room couch. One fascinating architectural change that occurs in the time period in which Putnam observes the decline in civic engagement is the disappearance of the front porch…people wanted bigger living rooms, to hang out and watch TV! That, of course, also resulted in lower informal social interaction between neighbors.
But even more striking to me are the psychological effects Putnam describes from watching TV, which translated into civic apathy and disengagement. He notes that TV watching “encourages lethargy and passivity,” and is associated with loneliness, emotional difficulties, and low concentration. And, as far as social relationships, Putnam observed that television creates a “pseudopersonal connection to others…creat[ing] a false sense of companionship, making people feel intimate, informed, clever, busy, and important.”
In short, Putnam writes, “By making us aware of every social and personal problem imaginable, television also makes us less likely to do anything about it.” Sound like another technology you’re familiar with?
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to The Freedom Academy with Asha Rangappa to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.